A realty major has a property (One Project)across bangalore and has only 20,000 (approximate) pages of title documents available for scrutiny. This is the first of its kind in the state that such huge volume of documents of property is under scrutiny. It might take only one month for several advocates to read it, leave alone the further scrutiny.
But, the clever builder, insists that this project is approved by many Banks. Earlier, the same builder`s property was TAKEN OVER BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA. This property is worth over Rs.150 crores only. Another property developed by the same developer on whitefield main road, near ramagondanahally, is also in similar trouble for having encroached raja kaluve, gomala, bandi daari and kaalu dari and the entire grant and approval are irregular as per the STF.
Looking through, rather from all angles, as per the HM’s believed-to-be-assurance openly given, all such projects, ongoing or otherwise, would come within the purview and domain of the RERA (since passed by both the HOUSES, albeit subject to certain ‘reservations’ dubiously classified by some as ‘highlights’ ). Even so, the point of grave poser: Are the provisions of the RERA adequate and fool – /safe- proof enough to effectively protect the ignorant buyers ‘ community against anyone or more of such or similar irregularities ; – commonly known to being perpetrated, and continue to be pursued and perpetuated by ‘top’ or ‘bottom’ builder, with no let-up; and particularly, without the need to resort to and woefully litigating, inconclusively for li-fe (-ves ?!
In every legislation, there are safety provisions, but these legislation will be put to test over a period of time and should be able to ascertain what are the new ways and means, the builders/developers/sellers group would indulge and exploit the buyers and plug the legal loopholes.
As of now the Provisions appear to be adequate, but there are no measures or provisions to contain the illegalities and the future litigations. Caveat Emptor is applicable and the buyers must conduct a diligent enquiry before the purchase and must not rely on the builders/sellers/developers statement.
The supplemented view wprt the age old maxim ‘caveat emptor’ seems to have overlooked the paradigm shift in place over the decades in favour of purchaser (emptor). For knowing the sweeping changes that have been taking place to suit the changing times/changed factual matrix (circumstances) , recommend to look up the updated information galore on caveat venditor ; instance HERE
http://www.mondaq.com/x/40206/Arbitration+Dispute+Resolution/From+Caveat+Emptor+to+Caveat+Venditor+a+Brief+History+of+English+Sale+of+Goods+Law.
One having no personal field experience for quite long cannot say for certain as to whether at all, and if so to what extent, the noted change has percolated through, gained currency and is being adopted in regard to disputes taken to domestic courts for adjudication in recent times. Be that as it may, lawyers are, it is high time, expected to have kept selves updated in representing clients accordingly.
Going by memory (offhand, subject to refreshing) , remember to have dwelt upon the foregoing aspect in some published material and shared in personal / icl blogs as well.
Caveat Emptor must be taken in its true sense that buyers must be aware of what they buy. Yes. No doubt that rule must be viewed from the changed circumstances. But Our system is still lagging behind in the enforcement and the buyers must also exercise their diligence and the law alone cannot protect or secure or even avoid litigation.